Art vs. Entertainment, II

One thing which the previous discussion
immediately demonstrates is that any framework of difference between
music as art &
music as entertainment is muddled
at least until the modern era. Leaving to one side the issue of
music as rite, we must continue to
inquire regarding the distinction between art & entertainment
today. There are many relevant
questions: Is there really a distinction? What is the cause of
such a distinction, or perception of distinction? Is such an actual
or perceived distinction healthy? Is it inevitable, etc.? If we
trace such a distinction to the modern era, then we must ask, if
only as a matter of correlation, whether it has served to undermine
the relevance of music. If the
bewildering contemporary classical
landscape is a result of the rise of music as entertainment,
and if we desire some sort of unification,
how do we break down paradigmatic differences? These appear to be
critical questions with regard to operating as a composer today.

First of all, it is sobering to note that these issues arise
only from an aesthetic perspective. As far as the
entertainment paradigm is concerned,
a multiplicity of styles with no relation or development presents
no dilemma. Moreover, the relevance of music is completely subsumed
in the question of whether some particular audience finds it
diverting. This "flat" approach to evaluation yields no
need to make distinctions, and indeed resists them. Again, it is
far too easy to define an aesthetic orientation in opposition to
those ideas, and even tempting to assert that the splintering of
classical style today is not only driven by the dominance of popular
music, but is self-consciously sculpted with an eye toward that
opposition. I wrote of "taking control of our thoughts,"
and such self-consciousness is the key to both control &
opposition. While popular mega-stars are stereotypically known for
their personal vanity, they are not known for a keen sense of
themselves as historical actors. The artist, by declaring himself
to be an artist, is immediately stepping into the realm of explicit
self-consciousness during the act of creation. One might even
circumscribe the distinction between music as art & music as
entertainment by that act. Moreover, art has taken on a rhetoric
of expression, a creator's orientation.
Entertainment defines itself by the listener, i.e. whether one is
entertained.

From a practical perspective, this particular divergence has
direct consequences for listener involvement. Entertainment promotes
passive processes, and the essential idea that stimuli should wash
over one. In contrast, art at its most self-conscious demands
listener attention and listener investment; as creator-oriented,
it asks one to adopt the creator's perspective. The consequence
for mental acuity in these two environments is immediately obvious,
and is an explicit reason for breaking from a flat paradigm.
Evaluation, and pondering context, sharpens the mind. Of course,
such mental stimulation is not without possible
negative consequences itself, including
the conflation of history & meaning.
Moreover, it runs the risk of doing exactly what popular culture
seeks to do, i.e. saturate the mind with stimulation. In either
case, there is a fundamental danger from
misdirection, and in the case of art,
sometimes torturous deconstruction
to combat it. Popular entertainment is not torturous (in this
sense), but it is certainly not free of simulation. Indeed, it
frequently embraces the phoniest, most misdirected acts possible.
It revels in celebrity per se, and churns out copycat productions.
It is, on the face of it, often completely and utterly false. Art
is doing battle with that falseness,
but direct battle, too often akin to the infamous pig in the mud.

In the context of the present bifurcation, what art cannot do
is be unselfconscious. It is about establishing a context for act,
even if it seeks to carve out space
for a raw act within some bubble. When it comes to relevance —
or even vibrance — we can easily ask ourselves: Where is the
pure act? We would like to seek it in the popular realm, and
historically that is where composers have sought it. Returning to
the Franco-Flemish era, the close
intermingling of sacred & secular, polyphony & popular
created not only a reservoir of ideas for art, but a grounded
existence. Art, defined hastily here as more complicated technical
music, arose organically from a substratum of entertainment. In
the postmodern era that organic
component is likewise sought via quotation, but it becomes that
much more self-conscious. Indeed, it becomes impossible to side-step
a distinction which was once fluid. Undoubtedly, there are still
pure acts, but they become increasingly difficult to transplant.
There is a growing perception that art, and especially postmodernism,
is parasitic with regard to such acts. Of course, it is parasitic
in a different way than the entertainment mega-corporations, which
certainly know economic exploitation
well. Both are seeking something they can use. There is also the
issue of passivity, especially as classical music enthusiasts become
couch potatoes. While the mental involvement may be different,
popular music enthusiasts are often more physically involved with
their music. That sort of involvement is crucial to a pure act.
Art may have become too dainty for itself on this point.

In reference to the opening questions, the previous discussion
suggests that an art/entertainment bifurcation is both unhealthy
and inevitable, hardly a happy conclusion. What it does not do is
provide an underlying foundation in cause. Is there
even such a thing as causality?
Distinguishing correlation & causality is never easy, especially
as regards history. One thing which can be asserted with some
confidence, however, is that when it comes to paradigms and other
such fanciful matters, perception is reality. There is a real
distinction between art & entertainment, one which both sides
perpetuate. The "cause" may be found in the basic desire
to distinguish, and as noted last time, it is a basic desire which
is being projected backward through
history. We can find some positive outcomes to hostility, and
indeed as a basic human trait, it cannot really be proscribed, but
from an aesthetic perspective, can we function while being cut off
(by our own acts of opposition) from the unselfconscious utterances
of ordinary people? Being blind to such distinctions might require
some creative forgetting, and even
more importantly, refusal to be defined in opposition. So let me
subvert that duality now, something
which medieval music already does.
One can immediately note that popular music has its better examples
and its more sophisticated listeners. Art certainly has its poseurs,
and indeed one cannot shake the feeling that the present distinction
is an imposition itself.